Read Green Left Weekly, our sister publication

GLW Radio on 3CR

Syndicate

February 19, 2012 -- First published inAxis of Logic, posted at Links International Journal of Socialist Renewal with permission -- Bolivia’s vice-president Álvaro García Linera brought a message of hope and
anti-imperialist commitment to Mexico in the first week of February.
Speaking to an overflow assembly of students and university personnel at
Mexico City’s UNAM (National Autonomous University), he said that the
government led by President Evo Morales welcomes social-movement
protests and conflict. The more, the better.

The struggle is our nourishment, our
peace. It does not overwhelm us. Absolute calm frightens us. Our
opponents believe the struggle will wear us down. On the contrary, it
nourishes us.

The UNAM’s Economics Research Institute (IIE) sponsored the vice-president’s address on “Bolivia: Achievements and Challenges of
Transformation.”

García Linera described Bolivia’s MAS (Movement toward Socialism)
administration as a “government of social movements”. Nevertheless, he
recognised that in the past three years “tensions” have arisen between
the government and social movements, between the need for
industrialisation and for protecting the environment, and between
collective social needs and particular corporatist or sectoral
interests.

I am not complaining. I am merely
describing what is happening in a revolutionary process. We have chosen
to ride these contradictions, always keeping this in mind – everything
that favours the broad masses is suitable, everything that enables common
action is suitable. Sometimes you stumble, and certainly over time
other kinds of contradictions will emerge… [but] any revolutionary
process stagnates if it does not have contradictions.[1]

The Mexican daily La Jornada featured an interview with García Linera in
its February 7 edition. Journalist Luis Hernández Navarro, who
conducted the interview, described the Bolivian vice-president as “one
of today’s most important Latin American left intellectuals”:

He has theorised the Bolivian experience
of transformation as no one has done, that is, with originality, depth
and freshness. And today the Bolivian experience is an obligatory and
ever stronger point of reference for the popular movement in Latin
America. García Linera has a profound but far from doctrinaire command
of classical Marxism.

García Linera analyses the revolution under way in Bolivia as a
“post-neoliberal” and “post-capitalist transition” led by its Indigenous
majority.

Today, he argues, the “subjects of politics and the real institutions
of power are now found in the indigenous, plebian arena. Today, the
real power of the state is located within what were once called
‘conflict scenarios’ such as trade unions and communities. And those
previously condemned to be silent subaltern subjects are today’s policy
makers.”

García Linera thinks that the current transformation under way in
Bolivia is more profound than any previous revolutionary upsurge in his
landlocked country. How far can this emancipation struggle go? He
believes the answer to that question is to be found not just in Bolivia,
but in the interplay with other struggles throughout the continent. “We
place our hope of moving beyond capitalism in the expansion of agrarian
and urban communitarianism, knowing that this is a universal task, not
just that of a single country.” In that vein, he points to the need for
revolutionary governments to ally regionally and act as supranational
states, while always respecting national sovereignty and cultures.

Below is my English-language translation of the interview.

* * *

Luis Hernández Navarro interviews with Álvaro García Linera

Luis Hernández Navarro: You have governed Bolivia for six years. Has progress towards decolonisation of the state really been accomplished?

Álvaro García Linera: In Bolivia, the fundamental fact we have experienced has been
the change in role of the people making up the demographic majority in
the past and today – the indigenous peoples. Previously, because of the
brutality of the [European] invasion and the burden from centuries of
domination, which permeated the outlook of both the ruling classes and
the subservient classes, indigenous peoples were condemned to be
peasants, toilers, informal artisans, porters or waiters. Now they are
ministers (both men and women), deputies, senators, directors of public
companies, constitution writers, supreme court magistrates, governors,
and president.

Decolonisation is a process of dismantling the institutional, social,
cultural, and symbolic structures that tied peoples’ daily activities
to the interests, hierarchies, and narratives imposed by external
powers. Colonialism means territorial domination imposed by force that
over time becomes “second nature.” It becomes etched into “normal”
behaviour, daily routine, and the mundane perceptions of the dominated
peoples. Therefore, dismantling the machinery of domination requires a
lot of time. In particular, time is needed to modify domination that has
come to be the common outlook, to modify the cultural habits of people.

The organisational forms of the contemporary indigenous movement –
communal, agrarian, and union – with their style of assembly
deliberation, traditional rotation of posts, and, in some cases, common
control of means of production, are today the centers of political
decision making and a good part of the economy in Bolivia.

Today, to influence the state budget or to know the government
agenda, it does not at all help to rub shoulders with senior officials
of the International Monetary Fund, the Inter-American Development Bank,
or US and European embassies. Today the state power circuits pass
through the debates and decisions of indigenous, worker and neighborhood
assemblies.

The subjects of politics and the real institutions of power are now
found in the indigenous, plebian arena. Today, the real power of the
state is located within what were once called “conflict scenarios” such
as trade unions and communities. And those previously condemned to be
silent subaltern subjects are today’s policy makers.

This opening-up of the horizon of historical possibility to
indigenous peoples – so they can be farmers, labourers, bricklayers,
house workers, but also foreign ministers, senators, ministers or
justices – is the greatest and most egalitarian social revolution in
Bolivia since its founding. The displaced noble ruling classes use an
arid and derogatory phrase to designate the “holocaust” of these last
six years: “Indians in power.”

How should the economic model that has been implemented be
characterised? Is it an expression of 21st century socialism? Is it a
form of post-neoliberalism?

Basically, it is a post-neoliberal model, a post-capitalist
transition. Led by the indigenous movement, it has involved regaining
control of natural resources that were in foreign hands (gas, oil, some
minerals, water, electricity) and putting them in state hands, while
other resources such as government lands, large estates, and forests
have come under community control of indigenous peoples and farmers.

Today the state is the main wealth generator in the country. That
wealth is not valorised as capital; it is redistributed throughout
society through bonuses, rents, direct social benefits to the
population, the freezing of utility rates and basic fuel prices, and
subsidies to agricultural production. We try to prioritise wealth as use
value over exchange value. In this regard, the state does not behave as
a collective capitalist in the state-capitalist sense, but acts as a
redistributor of collective wealth among the working classes and as a
facilitator of the material, technical and associative capacities of
farmer, community, and urban craft production modes. We place our hope
of moving beyond capitalism in this expansion of agrarian and urban
communitarianism, knowing that this is a universal task, not just that
of a single country.

How does the process of regional integration appear to you
in Bolivia? What role do the United States and Spain play? What
influence do China, Russia and Iran have?

The Latin American continent is going through an exceptional
historical cycle. Many of the governments are revolutionary and
progressive. Neoliberal governments tend to appear as reactionary. And
at the same time, the Latin American economy has undertaken internal
initiatives that are enabling it to vigorously address the effects of
the global crisis. In particular, the importance of regional markets and
links with Asia has defined a new kind of continental economic
architecture. We must concentrate on deepening this regional
articulation through projecting, if possible, a kind of regional state
composed of states and nations. Let’s act as a regional state with
respect to utilisation and global negotiation of the great strategic
wealth we possess (oil, minerals, lithium, water, agriculture,
biodiversity, light industry, a young and skilled workforce).
Internally, let’s act with respect for state sovereignty and the
regional national identities found on the continent. Only then can we
have our own voice and force in the course of the dynamic globalisation
of social life.

Is Washington actively sabotaging the ongoing transformation in Bolivia?

The US government has never accepted that Latin American
nations define their own destiny because it has always considered us as
part of its area of political influence regarding its territorial
security, and as its catchment basin of natural and social wealth. It
reacts to any dissent with this colonial approach by targeting the
insurgent nation. The sovereignty of the people is the number one enemy
of US policy.

This has happened to Bolivia over these last six years. We have
nothing against the US government or its people. But no one –
absolutely no one – should come here and tell us what to do, say or
think. We cannot accept that. And when, as a government of social
movements, we began to lay the material foundations of state sovereignty
with the nationalisation of gas, when we broke the embarrassing
influence of the embassies in ministerial decisions, when we defined a
policy of national unity to confront the openly separatist tendencies
latent in regional oligarchies, the US embassy not only financially
supported the conservative forces, but organised and led them
politically, brutally interfering in our internal affairs. That forced
us to expel the ambassador and later that country’s drug enforcement
agency (DEA).

Since then conspiracy mechanisms have become more sophisticated: they
use non-governmental organisations, infiltrate indigenous groups
through third parties, and try to divide the popular sectors, while
projecting parallel leaderships. This was recently demonstrated by the
flurry of calls from the [US] embassy itself to some indigenous
leaders of the Territorio Indígena y Parque Nacional Isiboro Sécure
(TIPNIS – Isiboro Sécure Indigenous Territory and National Park) march
last year.

Come what may, we seek respectful diplomatic relations, but we are
also on guard to repel foreign intervention, whether “high” or “low”
intensity.

Some sectors on the left have argued that the conservative
bloc has managed to regroup and take the offensive, while the social
movement that brought the MAS to power has been absorbed by
institutional politics. Is this a correct assessment?

Today’s conservative bloc, comprised of foreign-oriented
oligarchies, has no alternative project for society, no project capable
of articulating a general will to power. The current Bolivian political
horizon is marked by a virtuous tripod – plurinationality (indigenous
peoples and nations in command of the state), autonomy (territorial
devolution of power), and a pluralist economy (state-articulated
coexistence of various modes of production).

With the temporary defeat of the right-wing neoliberal economic and
social project, what today characterises Bolivian politics is the
emergence of “creative tensions” within the national-popular bloc
actually in power. After the great moments of mass ascendancy, during
which a universal ideal of great transformations was launched, the
social movement in some cases is now undergoing a process of corporative
retreat. For a time local interests tend to prevail over national
concerns, or organisations get caught up in internal struggles for
control of public posts. But new, unforeseen themes on how to lead the
revolutionary process also emerge. Such is the case with the issue of
defending the rights of Mother Earth where tensions arise in relation to
popular demands to industrialise natural resource use.

As you see, it’s a matter of contradictions among the people, of
tensions that yield to collective debate on how to carry forward
revolutionary changes. And that is healthy, it is democratic, and it is
the fulcrum for life-giving renewal of action by social movements. Even
though these contradictions could be used by imperialism and the lurking
rightist forces that in a transvestite ventriloquist style project
their long-term interests through some popular subjects and through
discourse that is seemingly anti-globalisation and environmental.

In September 2011, the march of indigenous peoples in
defence of TIPNIS and against building a road was repressed by the
police. This was presented to the public as a loss of indigenous support
for the government of Evo Morales. It was stated that the Bolivian
government persisted in building the road because it had received
financial support from the Brazilian oil firm OAS.[2] Is this true?

The indigenous peoples of Bolivia, as in Guatemala, are a
majority of the inhabitants. Sixty-two per cent of Bolivians are
indigenous peoples. The main indigenous nations are the Aymara and
Quechua, with about six million people located mainly in the highlands,
valleys, the Yungas zones, and also in the lowlands. Other indigenous
nations are the Guarani, Moxenos, Yuracare, Tsimane, Ayoreos, and
another 29 who live in the lowlands of the Amazon, Chaco, and
Chiquitania regions. The total population of these low-lying nations is
estimated at between 250,000 and 300,000 people.

The conflict over TIPNIS has involved some indigenous peoples of the
lowlands, but the government retains support from indigenous peoples of
the highlands and valleys, who make up 95 per cent of Bolivia’s
indigenous population. And most of the mobilised indigenous people were
leaders from other regions, not actually from TIPNIS. They have
systematic support of environmental NGOs, many of them funded by the
US Agency for International Development (USAID), plus the backing of
the major private television communication networks, owned by old
members of the separatist oligarchy – networks that have a strong
influence on the formation of middle-class public opinion.

More
recently, another march has arrived in La Paz, also comprised of lowland
indigenous people and a larger number of TIPNIS inhabitants. They are
demanding the construction of the highway through the park, arguing that
it is not possible that they be sidelined without their rights to
health, education, and transport, which they can today access only after
days of walking.

The problem is complex. Entangled in it are issues specific to
revolutionary debate, with themes such as the delicate balance between
respect for Mother Earth and the urgent need to link the country
together after centuries in which its regions have been isolated. It
involves the discussion of the highland indigenous people’s organic
relation with, and their leadership in, the plurinational state – which
is different from the still ambiguous relationship the lowlands
indigenous peoples have with the plurinational state.

But what is also involved is the regional strategy of the Santa Cruz
oligarchy to prevent this road, which would [once in operation] deprive
them of corporate control of economic activity throughout the Amazon
region. The United States governemt is interested in controlling the Amazon as its
reservoir of water and biodiversity, and in promoting divisions between
indigenous leaders in order to create conditions for expelling
indigenous peoples from state power. There is also the interest of some
NGOs that are accustomed to using the parks for large private
businesses.

In any case, in the midst of this tangle of interests, we as a
government must be able to democratically resolve internal tensions, and
to uncover and neutralise counterrevolutionary interests that often
dress in pseudo-revolutionary costume.

Why build this road despite the opposition of a portion of the population?

For three reasons. First, to ensure that the indigenous
population of the park has access to constitutional rights and
guarantees: to safe water so that children do not die from stomach
infections; to schools with teachers who teach in their language,
preserving their culture and enriching it with other cultures. To
provide access to markets for their produce without having to navigate
on rafts for a week to be able to sell their rice or to buy salt at 10
times' the price charged in any neighborhood convenience store.

The second reason is that the road will for the first time link the
Amazon region, a third of Bolivia, with other regions of the valleys and
highlands. Bolivia has kept a third of its territory isolated. That has
allowed state sovereignty to be replaced by the power of landlords,
foreign logging firms, or drug dealers.

And the third reason is geopolitical. The separatist tendencies of
the oligarchy, who were about to split apart Bolivia in 2008, were
contained because they were defeated politically during the September
coup that year, and because some of its material agro-industrial base
was taken over by the state.

However, the reactionary separatist tendencies still have one last
economic pillar, the control of the Amazonian economy. In order to reach
the rest of the country, Amazonians must rely on processing and
financing by firms under the control of oligarchs based in Santa Cruz. A
road that directly links the Amazon with the valleys and highlands
would radically reconfigure the structure of regional economic power,
breaking down the last material base of the separatists and leading to a
new geo-economic axis for the state. The paradox of this is that
history has placed some leftists in the position of becoming the best
and most vocal advocates for the most conservative and reactionary
interests in the country.

Some argue that Bolivia remains a supplier of raw materials
in the international market and that the development model in practice
(which some analysts have termed "extractive") does not question this
role. Is this true? Does it involve a phase of accumulation that is
accompanied by a redistribution of income?

Neither the extractive or non-extractive approach, nor
industrialism is a vaccine against injustice, exploitation, and
inequality. In themselves, they are neither productive modes nor ways of
managing wealth. They are technical systems for processing nature
through labour. And depending on how they use these technical systems, on
how they manage wealth thus produced, economic regimes may have more or
less justice, with or without labour exploitation.

2. Translator’s note: According to its website,
OAS is a heavy construction and engineering company, not an oil
company. Based in São Paulo, Brazil, it operates in 15 countries of
South and Central America, the Caribbean, and Africa. See also company profile.